JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. As per the report of the Registry, the appeal is barred by 3 years, 4 months and 8 days of delay.

2. Reply to the application has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the delay in filing the application is bona fide and not intentional. By drawing the attention of the Court to the averments made in the application learned counsel has submitted that the reasons mentioned therein demonstrate that the delay in filing the application was not at all intentional and it was for reasons which were beyond the control of the applicant. Accordingly, he prayed that the application be allowed and delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

4. The prayer is seriously opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant. They submit that the delay besides being inordinate, has gone totally unexplained in the application for the reason that the reasons assigned therein cannot be said to constitute a bona fide ground so as to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, they have submitted that as the application is without any merit, the same be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also carefully gone through the averments made in the application as well as the impugned order.

6. The award in issue was passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 20.04.2019. The applicant was impleaded as respondent No.2 before the learned MACT. It was duly represented by its counsel and the claim was also contested by the applicant before the learned Tribunal. Now in these circumstances, the averments, as have been made in the application that the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation for the reason that the panel counsel of the Company did not intimate the applicant-Company about the passing of the award or that they became aware of the award only on 26.11.2021, when a notice was received by them in execution proceedings or that the file relating to the case was not traceable in the office of the applicant-Company or that the legal manager of the Company, who was looking after the location, resigned in the month of March, 2022 and there was no one at Chandigarh to take care of the cases till June 2022 etc., are no cogent reasons to condone the delay of more than 3 years and 4 months.

7. In fact, averments, made in the application, are demonstrative of the fact that the applicant has not acted with due diligence in the matter of filing the appeal. Even if this Court is to presume in favour of the applicant that after passing of the award by the learned Tribunal, this fact was not brought to the notice of the applicant-Company by the lawyer, who was representing the Company before the learned Tribunal, then also the explanation given by the applicant is not worth any credit. What transpired internally in the affairs of the Company cannot constitute a plausible reason from condoning a delay of more than 3 years and 4 months, during which time, rights has crystallized in favour of the non-applicants, qua whom the award attained finality after the expiry of the period of limitation.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General and others Versus Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, has been pleased to hold as under:-

“26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties,